Last night, I posted my ideal vision of what I believe a great principal, an ideal principal, a phenomenal principal would be like. As I slept and even as I take a few sips of my Wawa coffee, I really do believe that there are some out there! Principals who are great at what they do and who, like teachers, face mounting pressures from outside, noneducational interests to "perform" as if we are actors on stage! I believe that there are principals out there who know what excellent teaching and learning looks like and have had the 10+ years experience of actually being involved in such experiences as a CLASSROOM TEACHER (and were great at it)!
I also believe that those types of principals are the exception and not the norm! Big ups to you principals who are leaders indeed; compassionate, caring, strong, intentional, knowledgeable pedagogues, not forgetful of what it was like in the classroom, advocating teachers indeed!!
Some call me "Flem"
- Dr. Stephen R. Flemming
- I'm an elementary school teacher turned high school English teacher, School-Based Teacher Leader (SBTL), and adjunct professor here in Philly. These posts are the views, as I see them, from room 105, my first classroom number. Enjoy, engage, and share!
Showing posts with label principals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label principals. Show all posts
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Thursday, August 7, 2014
The Problems with Non-Seniority-Based Layoffs
PennCan tweeted out an OpEd piece arguing for non-seniority based teacher layoffs, if and when layoffs are necessary in a school district. ~~> http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2014/08/want_to_retain_our_best_teache.html
I understand their position. I really do. I'm not so much of a hot-head for public schools, public school students, public school teachers, public school funding, etc. that I cannot at least listen to the arguments of those with whom I disagree. So yes, I understand their point, but I disagree.
As they point out, teacher-layoffs are unfortunate no matter what, but using seniority is by far the most objective way to do it, if it must be done.
The problem with performance-based layoffs in this culture of ed-reform is that they're based on unfounded assumptions. Here are 7 assumptions that performance-based layoffs are based on:
1. All principals are fair and objective
2. All principals know what good teaching and learning looks like
3. Principals don't set teachers up to fail
4. Principals have extended themselves as true instructional leaders to assist teachers who may be struggling (assuming they themselves are teachers indeed and know how to help struggling teachers)
5. New teachers are all effective teachers
6. Teachers with length of years are ineffective
7. Principals won't ever force teachers out with whom they've had a falling out (speaks to that fair and objective assumption)
I think I should pause here to point out that not all principals are power-tripping, only-2-years-in-the-classroom-then-turned-academic-coach-and-now-principal, out-to-get-and-punish-the-teachers antagonists. There are some great principals out there!!
I should also point out that new teachers need time to develop and become the phenomenal teachers they aspire to be. They are energetic, young, and fresh out of the box and most certainly have a place among the faculty of a school. I believe the best schools are schools that have a healthy mix of new and experienced teachers who collaborate well for the good of the student body and overall climate of the building!
In this education reform era edu-philanthropists, many politicians, and other reformies don't believe that one needs to be an educator to be in school and district leadership positions (Broad Academy selects their participants "from within and outside the K-12 education--emphasis mine--http://www.broadcenter.org/academy/about/academy-at-a-glance).
Nor do they necessarily believe that one needs to be an educator to be in the classroom....ahem...Teach for America (http://www.teachforamerica.org/why-teach-for-america/who-we-look-for). Because of the prominence of non-educators in positions of leadership and because not all principals are fair, objective, and are true instructional leaders who extend themselves to be an asset to all teacher, principals should not be given blanket and Broad powers (pun intended) to hire, fire, and recommend for layoff and why performance should not be the primary factor for teacher layoffs, if and when they must occur.
The reformies would argue that test scores take out the subjectivity from such decisions. Base educational decisions of test scores and other Value Added Measures. Put a number to it! Wait! You mean the test scores that come from kids who may not have wanted to take the test and filled in anything just to be done with it? Or the score of a kid whose parent didn't come home last night? Maybe they mean the test score of a kid who had to stay up all night in the hospital because his kid brother got shot the night before and was made to come to school and test his pain away? Perhaps the scores of a kid who had to hustle to bring in some extra bread (the slang and literal meanings) for the family because his mother had to work a double last night and that's barely enough? Those scores? I'm paranoid and an alarmist you say? Have you seen the news recently in Philadelphia and Chicago?
Seniority-based layoffs are objective. Such decisions leave no room for cronyism, nepotism, or punish-the-outspoken-kick-against-the-pricks-type of teacher! We shouldn't even be discussing teacher layoffs when class sizes are larger than they ought to be and when we could use every available teacher we can get our hands on. But if they must occur, seniority, for the reasons mentioned (and others), is the way to go!
I understand their position. I really do. I'm not so much of a hot-head for public schools, public school students, public school teachers, public school funding, etc. that I cannot at least listen to the arguments of those with whom I disagree. So yes, I understand their point, but I disagree.
As they point out, teacher-layoffs are unfortunate no matter what, but using seniority is by far the most objective way to do it, if it must be done.
The problem with performance-based layoffs in this culture of ed-reform is that they're based on unfounded assumptions. Here are 7 assumptions that performance-based layoffs are based on:
1. All principals are fair and objective
2. All principals know what good teaching and learning looks like
3. Principals don't set teachers up to fail
4. Principals have extended themselves as true instructional leaders to assist teachers who may be struggling (assuming they themselves are teachers indeed and know how to help struggling teachers)
5. New teachers are all effective teachers
6. Teachers with length of years are ineffective
7. Principals won't ever force teachers out with whom they've had a falling out (speaks to that fair and objective assumption)
I think I should pause here to point out that not all principals are power-tripping, only-2-years-in-the-classroom-then-turned-academic-coach-and-now-principal, out-to-get-and-punish-the-teachers antagonists. There are some great principals out there!!
I should also point out that new teachers need time to develop and become the phenomenal teachers they aspire to be. They are energetic, young, and fresh out of the box and most certainly have a place among the faculty of a school. I believe the best schools are schools that have a healthy mix of new and experienced teachers who collaborate well for the good of the student body and overall climate of the building!
In this education reform era edu-philanthropists, many politicians, and other reformies don't believe that one needs to be an educator to be in school and district leadership positions (Broad Academy selects their participants "from within and outside the K-12 education--emphasis mine--http://www.broadcenter.org/academy/about/academy-at-a-glance).
Nor do they necessarily believe that one needs to be an educator to be in the classroom....ahem...Teach for America (http://www.teachforamerica.org/why-teach-for-america/who-we-look-for). Because of the prominence of non-educators in positions of leadership and because not all principals are fair, objective, and are true instructional leaders who extend themselves to be an asset to all teacher, principals should not be given blanket and Broad powers (pun intended) to hire, fire, and recommend for layoff and why performance should not be the primary factor for teacher layoffs, if and when they must occur.
The reformies would argue that test scores take out the subjectivity from such decisions. Base educational decisions of test scores and other Value Added Measures. Put a number to it! Wait! You mean the test scores that come from kids who may not have wanted to take the test and filled in anything just to be done with it? Or the score of a kid whose parent didn't come home last night? Maybe they mean the test score of a kid who had to stay up all night in the hospital because his kid brother got shot the night before and was made to come to school and test his pain away? Perhaps the scores of a kid who had to hustle to bring in some extra bread (the slang and literal meanings) for the family because his mother had to work a double last night and that's barely enough? Those scores? I'm paranoid and an alarmist you say? Have you seen the news recently in Philadelphia and Chicago?
Seniority-based layoffs are objective. Such decisions leave no room for cronyism, nepotism, or punish-the-outspoken-kick-against-the-pricks-type of teacher! We shouldn't even be discussing teacher layoffs when class sizes are larger than they ought to be and when we could use every available teacher we can get our hands on. But if they must occur, seniority, for the reasons mentioned (and others), is the way to go!
Sunday, March 9, 2014
This whole submitting lesson plans thing....OLD!!
Today's view from 105 is centered on the main office and the bins for lesson plans! I'm sitting here plotting out a general outline for the week, complete with where I hope to go and how I plan on getting there. Real teachers know that lesson plans are working documents; ever-changing, adjusting, amending, working documents to guide the teaching and learning continuum.
Submitting plans is really starting to get a bit old, especially since what we submit and when may be the farthest thing from what will actually occur.
Here's a solution. Put in place, principals who are well-versed in "classroom", well versed in teaching and learning, one who knows what teaching/learning looks and sounds like (including the differences in teaching/learning styles among the faculty and students) and those who can demonstrate the same at the drop of a hat! If those types of leaders are in place, then random spot checks of plans are in order. This tired way of submitting plans in a bin or basket on a given day for instruction a week or two away and the funny looks when a walk-through occurs and the plans are different from the reality, that has to go!
Submitting plans is really starting to get a bit old, especially since what we submit and when may be the farthest thing from what will actually occur.
Here's a solution. Put in place, principals who are well-versed in "classroom", well versed in teaching and learning, one who knows what teaching/learning looks and sounds like (including the differences in teaching/learning styles among the faculty and students) and those who can demonstrate the same at the drop of a hat! If those types of leaders are in place, then random spot checks of plans are in order. This tired way of submitting plans in a bin or basket on a given day for instruction a week or two away and the funny looks when a walk-through occurs and the plans are different from the reality, that has to go!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)